February 19 2026 | Tenders | Industry news and trends | Procure
At present, the competitiveness of public sector procurement varies considerably between continents and regions. Globally, 47% of survey respondents rated competition as high or very high during the bidding stage of their most recent social infrastructure project but, in some regions, that figure dipped as low as 10%.
Developers believe the disparity is caused by political and structural factors, with transparency and strict governance thought to be key contributors to a more competitive – and level – playing field.
These are key findings from Ansarada Procure’s 2025 Social Infrastructure Outlook Report , developed in partnership with Infralogic, which synthesises opinions and insights from 150 global infrastructure leaders.
“If a bidder is going to invest a significant amount of money and effort into a bid, they need to know they have a fair chance, not that the outcome is biased towards someone else,” notes KPMG US’ Managing Director, Iain Tester.
Unpacking good governance
Competition appears to be most intense in EMEA where it’s rated ‘high’ or ‘very high’ by 30% of procurement professionals.
Not by coincidence, transparency and strict governance have long been embedded in procurement frameworks in the UK and mainland Europe.
In practical terms, this means tender criteria that are clear and accessible, open communication channels that encourage a broader range of bidders to participate, and regulatory frameworks that mandate standardised processes.
Creating a fairer tendering environment
Widespread acceptance of the fact that selection processes are biased is a competition killer. It shrinks the pool of bidders and sees authorities paying ‘over the odds’ for the social infrastructure needed to advance their local communities and society more broadly.
Decisive action at the leadership level can change this status quo and enable authorities in developing countries to deliver vital projects more efficiently and cost effectively, and to a higher standard.
Publishing tender details and demonstrating that proposals will be evaluated equitably, against clear, objective selection criteria, is an effective way to broaden the bidder pool.
So is breaking major projects down into a series of constituent ‘sub-projects’ which can be competently tackled by small and medium sized suppliers.
“You need to create deal flow and investment opportunities that make it attractive for participants to get involved and overcome barriers to entry,” Tester says. “If more competition can reduce prices or drive better solutions, then we need to think about how to put all those pieces together.”
Incorporating ESG into the social infrastructure equation
Unsurprisingly, Europe is also ahead of the pack when it comes to embedding robust Environmental and Social Governance (ESG) principles into social infrastructure procurement strategies and processes.
Just over half of all survey respondents globally reported doing this to a significant extent. There is, however, considerable variation across developed economies. In the Americas, 26% of participants stated that ESG was not incorporated into their strategies at all. By contrast, in the EMEA region, just
4% of respondents gave this answer.
Europe’s centralised approach to governance and compliance has helped make aligning ESG with decision making a more straightforward proposition there. Stringent EU regulations, such as the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, are fostering accountability and driving better outcomes for investors, governments, taxpayers and local communities.
Elsewhere in the world, there’s a steadily increasing appreciation of ESG’s importance in the infrastructure development sphere.
“In areas like energy efficient building design and community engagement, there’s a growing demand for robust frameworks,” Ansarada’s Business Development Director, Craig McMahon says. “While compliance costs and the effort to set up these frameworks can feel like a hurdle, most see it as an opportunity.”
Making improvements to the procurement process on the ground
Project and procurement professionals know they must remain focused on improvement if they’re to continue delivering more competitive processes and higher quality outcomes for the communities they serve.
There’s no shortage of scope for them to do things differently and better. Around half of all survey respondents globally cited the need for stronger project management and documentation, while 45% wanted to see rigor added to the risk management process.
Stricter and more comprehensive progress monitoring is also needed, to address time and cost overruns and improve visibility and oversight of major projects.
Turning to technology
That’s where digital technology has a vital role to play. The judicious adoption of specialised tools can have a transformative effect: enabling public authorities and agencies to optimise their procurement processes on multiple fronts.
Centralising and automating document tracking, for example, can result in greater transparency, accountability and competition, along with enhanced visibility into the progress of projects. Compliance and audit readiness can also be strengthened by swapping unreliable manual processes for automated, secure digital alternatives.
Support for the switch is strong among leaders and it’s their responsibility to make a strong case for it to their teams, Infrastructure NSW Associate Director, David Hurrell believes.
“Operationally, there’s some resistance due to concerns about job security,” he says. “Overcoming this requires demonstrating how these tools enhance outcomes, improve workflows, and support rather than replace team members.”
